# Include junior members in payment inference roster

## Context

A bank payment from sender `JIŘÍ KUBÍK` with the message
`Jáchym Kubík: 01/2026+03/2026+04/2026` is being inferred as
`[?] Jáchym Hrušák (G)` instead of the obvious `Jáchym Kubík`, even though
the message contains his exact full name.

**Root cause** (confirmed with the user): `Jáchym Kubík` is in the **junior**
attendance sheet only — he does not appear on the main/adults sheet. But
[scripts/infer_payments.py:101-102](scripts/infer_payments.py#L101-L102)
builds `member_names` by calling `get_members_with_fees()`
([scripts/attendance.py:170](scripts/attendance.py#L170)), which reads only
`EXPORT_URL` (the adults sheet). Junior-only members are therefore invisible
to the matcher.

With Kubík absent from `member_names`, the matcher in
[scripts/match_payments.py:65](scripts/match_payments.py#L65) processes the
combined text `jiri kubik jachym kubik: 01/2026+03/2026+04/2026` against an
adults-only roster:

- The exact-full-name short-circuit (`match_payments.py:75-84`) finds nothing —
  no adult's full name is in the text.
- Hrušák `(G)` is the only adult with first name `Jáchym`. He fails the
  auto-rules (his surname isn't in the text) but hits the partial-first-name
  review rule (`match_payments.py:123-125`) → returned as `("Jáchym Hrušák (G)",
  "review")`, rendered as `[?] Jáchym Hrušák (G)`.

The user's original framing — "exact match in message should win over
everything" — is already implemented for any candidate that **is** in the
roster (the May-04 short-circuit). The bug is upstream: the right candidate
was never even considered.

**Goal:** make `infer_payments` consider junior members as candidates, so
junior-only names like `Jáchym Kubík` get matched correctly.

## Approach

Single-file change in [scripts/infer_payments.py](scripts/infer_payments.py).

Replace the adults-only roster lookup with a union of the adult and junior
rosters. `attendance.py` already exposes both:
[`get_members_with_fees()`](scripts/attendance.py#L170) for adults (and tier-J
juniors who train with adults) and
[`get_junior_members_with_fees()`](scripts/attendance.py#L208) for everyone in
the junior sheet.

### Edit at [scripts/infer_payments.py:15](scripts/infer_payments.py#L15)

```python
from attendance import get_members_with_fees, get_junior_members_with_fees
```

### Edit at [scripts/infer_payments.py:99-102](scripts/infer_payments.py#L99-L102)

```python
print("Fetching member list for matching...")
adult_members, _ = get_members_with_fees()
junior_members, _ = get_junior_members_with_fees()

# Union rosters, preserving first-seen order, deduping by canonical key
seen: set[str] = set()
member_names: list[str] = []
for m in adult_members + junior_members:
    name = m[0]
    key = canonical_member_key(name)
    if key in seen:
        continue
    seen.add(key)
    member_names.append(name)
```

`canonical_member_key` already lives in
[scripts/match_payments.py:20](scripts/match_payments.py#L20) — import it
alongside `infer_transaction_details`. It normalizes diacritics/case/whitespace,
so `"Maria Maco"` and `"Mária Maco"` collapse to the same key.

### Why downstream reconciliation still works

`reconcile()` is invoked twice per page — once with the adults roster
([app.py:200](app.py#L200)) and once with the juniors roster
([app.py:384](app.py#L384)). Each call resolves the `Person` cell against its
own roster; a junior name resolves cleanly in the juniors call and lands in
"unmatched" in the adults call. That's already the existing behavior for any
junior payment manually entered into the `Person` column, so no further
changes are needed.

### Files to modify

- [scripts/infer_payments.py](scripts/infer_payments.py) — only the
  import + roster construction. ~10-line change.

### Files to read for confidence (no edits)

- [scripts/attendance.py:208-289](scripts/attendance.py#L208-L289) —
  `get_junior_members_with_fees` returns `(name, tier, …)` tuples just like
  the adults version, so `m[0]` works for both.
- [scripts/match_payments.py:65-137](scripts/match_payments.py#L65-L137) —
  `match_members` already handles the precedence the user wants (exact full-name
  short-circuit), so once Kubík is in `member_names`, the case will be auto-matched
  with no `[?]`.

## Verification

1. **Manual sanity** — re-run inference on the offending row:
   - Clear `Person`/`Purpose` for the Kubík row in the payments sheet.
   - `make infer`.
   - Expect `Person = Jáchym Kubík`, `Purpose = 2026-01, 2026-03, 2026-04`,
     no `[?]`.

2. **Unit test** — extend
   [tests/test_match_members.py](tests/test_match_members.py) (or add a small
   `tests/test_infer_payments.py`) to assert that, given a roster that
   includes `Jáchym Hrušák (G)` and `Jáchym Kubík`, the message
   `Jáchym Kubík: 01/2026+03/2026+04/2026` resolves to
   `[("Jáchym Kubík", "auto")]` only. This is really a regression test for
   the May-04 short-circuit — the new behavior under test is just that
   `infer_payments` now feeds in juniors.

3. **Run the suite**: `make test`.

4. **Dashboard smoke** — `make web`, open `/payments`, confirm the row now
   shows the correct member; open `/juniors`, confirm the payment is
   credited to Kubík for the three months listed.

5. **Changelog** — once the user confirms the fix, append an entry to
   [CHANGELOG.md](CHANGELOG.md) per [CLAUDE.md](CLAUDE.md):
   `## YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM TZ — fix: include juniors in payment-inference roster`.